# Wikisource:Scriptorium

 ← Community pages Scriptorium Archives →
 The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 342 active users here.

# Announcements

## ScienceSource proposal

At m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is a grant application to the WMF, and this announcement is the sequel to one I made here in October.

From the WikiSource angle, the proposition that the text of scientific papers should be hosted here hasn't actually flown, despite a discussion that reaches back to 2014, if I recall correctly. The proposed ScienceSource platform would be a chance, among other things, to hash out what could actually be done (at scale) with a large body of scientific paper text. The theme is "annotation", which could mean a number of things, and those things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm listed as a participant in the proposal. I'd like to think that some of the community here would support this pilot, as of interest in advancing "sources" within Wikimedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Final week for discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is the following discussion on this page at #Discussion: ScienceSource proposal

# Proposals

## Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law)

Since the Internet Archive is the first institution to exploit this feature of America's arcane and backwards copyright law, I suggest we be the second: Section 108h of the U.S. Code allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. One immediate objection I see is that it would introduce overhead on our part to determine if a work is actively being sold. On the contrary, I would suggest that this is no different than a DMCA request: assume that a work is not (most aren't), use basic common sense for due diligence, and then let someone else complain if he thinks we are hosting something we shouldn't be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource does far more than just scan works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! not too hard to determine if in print. do a alibris / amazon / worldcat. and a search for non-renewal is not too hard. and internet archive is doing the search and hosting. however, this community would never agree to such a librarian standard of practice. in 2 years we will start counting up anyway. do you have any orphans before 1941 of interest? Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment the proposal is changing the underlying predication of Wikisource in that we would be moving to a non-commercial type license, something akin to PD-1941-NC. These works would be unable to be taken from our site and reproduced as all our existing works can be. How would you differentiate between those works that can and those that cannot be commercialised? — billinghurst sDrewth
As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I think you've missed what first billinghurst meant, and my response to your question said. You made a "suggestion" or "comment", whereas a "proposal" is usually a more formal sort of presentation than what you posted. So billinghurst was pointing out that it didn't seem appropriate to post in the Proposals section (and I agree) because it's more a passing thought or idea than a formal proposal. So what you asked "not sure what you mean", I was trying to help answer that question. Yes, your "suggestion" involves a fundamental change, but that doesn't make it a "proposal". A proposal would be a formal well thought out and fully reasoned presentation for the community, rather than a passing thought about a big change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Proposed license is NOT compatible with 'free' licensing terms which permit commerical use. Any works uploaded would have to be locally hosted in any event, as the above would be a non-starter on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
• We host works that are not copyright in the US, yet some of these are still copyright in their home country, and we have both text and image as they cannot be at Commons.
• We do not host some works as they have copyright in the US, even though they are out of copyright in their home country.
• WMF has a broad scope to copyright and licensing and how they see that it applies and give latitude to how wikis can apply. It is a range, and up and down the range different conditions apply.
• We license all of our works with the conditions that apply to their hosting, and their re-use. It is our rule about not allowing "non-commercial" or not having "fair use", it is not WMF's.
• There are ways that we could differentiate non-commercial works from commercial works if we chose a different approach.
So how about a reasoned and logical debate, not an emotional one, or one that hinges on a dogma. Wikisource should develop, and that development should be in line with the scope of the WMF and its development. We should not be frozen in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
actually WMF does allow non-commercial works per "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." maybe we could have a proposal for pre-1941 works not in print?
thank-you for being honest about the appeal to emotion, rather than appeal to reasom. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
"3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ... Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
4. ... They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
Yes, your appeal that we should maximize the volume of works we can work on is no more an appeal to reason than my appeal to staying with free works. Rationally we can speak of the value of a small set of works that we may be forced to take down if they come back in print, versus the huge universe of pre-1923 work that is untouchable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
• works that are out of copyright in their home country, and that are out of print;
• compiled works that are not copyrighted for parent work, though may contain work that is within copyright within US; traditionally we have blanked those components in our transcription, be they chapters or images.
As a question, does anyone know why there is an 1941 cutoff? I haven't seen mention of why the 75 years is pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• a lot of the works will be US home country, but out of print, and orphaned, so we do not know who the copyright holder is (although hathi trust found some subsequently) see also w:Orphan works in the United States
• are you agreeing to a fair use of the lesser term? the Canadians and Chinese would be happy to agree with you.
• compilations are rare compared to the orphan ocean. we can also do a copyright search for non-renewal, but this is not "untouchable", the rules are too complicated for bright lines, but we can show our work as a standard of practice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the EDP, the only WS project I could find with a more-or-less clear stance is the French Wikisource, which allows both local uploads (like most except Japanese and Dutch) and, unusually, non-free content (which is discouraged, but some content is fair-use in French law; see this and this if you read French). Perhaps someone with a good command of French could research how they operate regarding these matters for ideas? Inatan (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Other than these "Last 20" books, I would like to draw attention to another class of books, already mentioned by , which are PD-home country but not PD-URAA. Such books are now allowed in Commons. Internet Archive has a good number, especially after the large-scale addition of DLI books. In case of Indian works, two types are now allowed here (exc. Govt woks & CC): Books published before 1923 and books by authors who died before 1941. If we allow PD-home country, then books of authors who died in 1941-1956 can be allowed, which is a huge number of books. For countries that are 70 pma (like UK), books by authors who died before 1947 can be allowed. This will considerably enrich the English Wikisource (e.g., by having the post-1923 works of Rabindranath Tagore and the books of hunting by Jim Corbett, among others). These are already allowed in Commons, so we may also consider. Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only.  Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
apparently you care enough to import the URAA drama, so we need the tag. how amusing. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"library status" is a loophole in the code, to host the pdf’s. we can still claim fair use of orphan works out of print, regardless of theories of who we are. if it is an orphan there is no one to claim copyright. i often lament the lack of nuance of what passes for consensus, in many forums.Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the deprecated template, why not mark it as "Historic", deleting it will benefit exactly no-one. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 11:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Then are we considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge to conditionally tolerate works affected by the m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term? I am ready to forget the "Last 20" books not affected by the US non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Set up a different Wikiproject - perhaps call it Wikilibrary. That will enable us to maintain a very clear scope and purpose of this project - scans and transcriptions of public domain works - and of the new project - scans only of works specifically falling under the library loophole. BD2412 T 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

## Change wording for guidance on line break removal

As per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Guidelines for removal of line breaks

I propose wording for guidance on line break removal at Help:Beginner's guide to typography be changed to one of the following options:

Remove line breaks.
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. When transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is best practice to remove these line breaks. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. It is recommended that line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing to lessen distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:
Removal of line breaks.
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. Therefore, when transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is recommended that these line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing. Doing so at this stage lessens distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:

Option 1 considers removal "best practice" and is more stringent in wording; option 2 is less stringent, yet recommends removal. Suggestions welcomed. [updated] Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If neither option is desirable, then please state that as well and we can go back to the drawing board. But it is my belief that the current wording needs to be less confusing and contradictory than it is. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think option 1 sounds good. Also, the heading is a guideline in its own right, so if someone doesn't read anything more than the ToC they'll get some idea of the recommended practice. Sam Wilson 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Should I turn my PageCleanup user script into a gadget (under the "Editing tools for Page: namespace" section)? I know there are a few different scripts for doing the same thing, but none of them are gadgets at the moment. I'm not sure if the actual replacements it makes are the best, but I use it on pretty much every page and it does quite well. Sam Wilson 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We should be looking to do something with Wikisource:TemplateScript as once on the management of preferred toys is gadgetfied. We are each so wedded to "our" clean up scripts, and not wanting to fluff around with coding when we could be proofreading, that we leave the collective good out in the cold. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If we can have one master, and then have the ability to add components, and possibly without the risk of breaking the master, that would be absolutely brilliant. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes good points. I think that TemplateScript commands should be moved into the editing toolbar though. The sidebar isn't where people (well, new people, anyway; we all know where things are) expect editing buttons to be. Or even better, let's put TemplateScript (i.e. a easy-to-extend system of text manipulations) into the new Wikisource extension! :-) Then all Wikisources can benefit. Sam Wilson 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Moving the commands into the editing toolbar would not be good for me as they're about to turn the only good toolbar off. We need to keep the commands available without depending on a toolbar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

# Repairs (and moves)

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

## Import from mul.ws

s:mul:The Morals of Chess, per a discussion on that Scriptorium. It looks like our only importer or transwiki importer is User:Jarekt who hasn't been active here in awhile. Can someone with advanced user rights please assist? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Technically, we really don't need to preserve attribution on the uploader of the original text. As for the paraphrase, I think it's out of scope here; we allow translations, but the language of the original text is clearly Modern English, not even the Early Modern English of Shakespeare.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand--are you saying this isn't the original work itself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The uploader added a paraphrase to the bottom of the original text, shortly before you posted this. The top part is, as far as I can tell, the original. https://archive.org/details/columbianmagazin17861787phil is the source; it's page 159. I hesitate to upload it, because it's not a perfect scan (some words are lost in the margins), and just making a page list for it would be a lot of work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually had no contributions to en-wikisource since my work on Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.djvu in 2013. All my other edits were done on Commons and than imported by others to this project. To my knowledge I never had any advanced rights on Wikisource, but if I can help somehow I can try. --Jarekt (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

## Repair the file of Index:Willich, A. F. M. - The Domestic Encyclopædia (Vol. 2, 1802).djvu

Can anyone do a repair, which is needed for this index? As I understand there are duplicated pages in the file: page 314 of the file (No. 284 in the book) is duplicated by page 318, and the image page 315 is duplicated by page 319. The duplicates should be removed from the file. Currently there are not any proofread pages for this index, so the removal doesn't cause necessity of any subsequent page moves, only the index's page list must be somewhat rewritten (and I can do this task on my own). --Nigmont (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, also removed duplicated page near the end. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thank you very much! --Nigmont (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

# Other discussions

## Invisible button in Mobile mode.

Hi everyone. I recently noticed that when viewing a page either on a mobile device, or on my desktop, but with "mobile mode", there is an "invisible" button to the left of the normal "Download" button (that just prints the current page). When clicked, it uses WSExport to download an Epub copy of the whole page. That's great! But unfortunately not many people will click on that button, because currently it is blank. I have looked it up, look at the console in mobile mode and found that it is throwing an error, and the burron suppoused to look like this , but that image doesn't load. I think the issue arises from MediaWiki:Mobile.css. I think it is trying to load the image relative to the wikisource domain, and not directly from Commons. I think it may be lacking the protocol HTTP. I don't know if formerly worked, but maybe its like this for years. --Ninovolador (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It would seem that they have a series for this month's featured text, and as such it doesn't fit our normal download profile. Something typical would be Template:Featured text/November so see how that looks to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. Mediawiki:Mobile.js and Mediawiki:Mobile.css remain the same for 2 years. For some reason the archival bot deleted my previous comment, so i copypaste it here:

I confirm that adding "https:" to the second background-url statement (and getting rid of the first, that gets completely replaced by the second) fixes the problem, and gets enWS a nice little feature . --Ninovolador (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice that on the "button menu" there is . If you go to "mobile mode" you won't see it. --Ninovolador (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that it would appear that we didn't have, or want to have, a download with the December FT. The November version already had the active components; and I see the January version similarly available with an active green EPUB and others. So I am not seeing the problem that you describe. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe its my broken english... I will try to rephrase it.
1. First, go to *any* work (not just FT) on *mobile view* (i.e. accessing the website from a mobile device such as a tablet or a smartphone, or simply clicking the mobile view link at the bottom of the screen).
2. Then, notice that there are, below the title, four "buttons": Interwiki button, PDF download button, Add to Watchlist button, and Edit button.
3. Then, click on the space just to the left of the "PDF download button", where no button appears to be. Check the first image of the gallery.
4. The result: you will download an ePUB copy of the work.
This is not a bug, this is the result of the javascript running on Mediawiki:Mobile.js, that generates it. But a bug spanning several years prevents the button's image to actually show up. The solution, if you still want to retain that feature, is to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css the way i stated before. If, on the other hand, you don't want to retain this feature, you'd have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.js and strip away the code that produces the button. --Ninovolador (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we are talking cross-purposes. I thought that you were talking WS:FT as appear on the main page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
even so: are you not interested in fixing this? You only have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css to add "https:" in front of the second "background-image: url( '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" so it says "background-image: url( 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" --186.67.71.38 03:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
you seem to be the most "technical" administrator. Would you take a look on this? --Ninovolador (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems that MinervaNeue or MobileFrontend (I think) is doing some fancy rewriting of URLs in mobile.css, because what's in the CSS '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' is actually being served as https://en.m.wikisource.org/w/%20'//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' and changing to https doesn't fix this. I'll keep digging. Sam Wilson 23:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it was just that there were quotes around the URL, and they're not required. Now removed and things seem to work again. I suspect this bug has not existed for years, but was brought about by some recent change in the CSS parser. Maybe? :-) Anyway, does it work for you now? Sam Wilson 23:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It is working normally now, thanks to you! --Ninovolador (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

## Scan-backed

The term "scan-backed" is a piece of jargon, apparently specific to Wikisource, whose meaning is not clear to many visitors. The page Wikisource:Scan-backed does not yet exit. Please will someone create it, or redirect it if a suitable target exists elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I never realized until recently that WS had a Glossary of terms (which could use some updating—to include "scan", "Index", "scan-backed" etc.—and perhaps should be linked to from the Help:Contents page; it is almost an orphan). Having a work scan-backed helps insure reliability of content, which is important, and helps keep WS relevant. Whether all terms "specific to Wikisource" rate a MS page, I do not know, but updating the Glossary and increasing its findability might be a start. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a link to the Glossary at Help:Contents; feel free to move the link where appropriate. If no one else gets to adding "scan" or "scan-backed" &c. to the glossary list, I will attempt it later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Huh, never heard of that page until now. In the meantime, the relevant page is Help:Page scans. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The pages mentioned, are a click away in the welcome message on your talk page. Follow the "proofreading" link, and the "help" link both get you to good pointers. That someone used scan-backed was their usage on the day, it definitely is a piece of jargon, though I wouldn't have said that it is overly common. That all said, it is probably worthwhile our again reviewing Template:Welcome to see whether it is the assistance that we want it to be, and it has been a while. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
and the desire to move from text only transcription to side by side scan backed, is an ongoing quality improvement. not a deletion rationale. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
That is correct. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Help:Page scans does not include the string "scan-backed" (nor "scan backed"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you wishing to make it a part of the WS lexicon? I am not understanding what it is you are seeking. Personally, I like the term and have used it myself. I can think of no better way to describe 'the thing'. I would have no objections to your adding it to the Glossary... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You wrote earlier: "If no one else gets to adding "scan" or "scan-backed" &c. to the glossary list, I will attempt it later". that would be a good outcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see, I prepped for it last month and it is still on my mental to-do list. "Later" was purposely ambiguous, as I voluntarily edit based primarily on my own motivation and prompting. Thanks for the reminder though! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, gave it a go. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

## Index:Occult Japan - Lovell.djvu validated and needs transclusion

Parking this here as I have just found this work has been validated for six months, and yet no pages are transcluded. I don't have the space do it now, and it needs parking in case someone else wishes to get to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections to giving it more passes to ensure it's 100% transcribed per the scans (within Common sense obviously).
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Didn't go through all pages, but the starting pages did need a bit of minor cleaning. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Done the transclusion, merging some of the drop capital images. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

## Wikidata and years in legal templates

Is there any way we could take the death year from Wikidata for the Pd/1923 style legal templates? I understand that it might be concerning to change a legal template based on Wikidata, but I've been cleaning up some author pages, and found a couple cases where Wikidata and the year in the template disagree. Maybe a category for disagreements, if automation is a step too far.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some works require multiple dates, or rely on multiple date considerations. If a work has both an author and translator, or bot an author and illustrator, or multiple authors, we may require more than one license. I'm not sure we could easily automate those situations, and they're fairly common. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It would think that it would be possible, the one issue though I would think that it would also mean that we would want to pull all the data fields from Wikidata, rather than just the licence template dates. If the right data is at WD, e.g. author, translator, etc. that should allow template creation. Also, in these situations we have always allowed for manual overwrite. So {{pd/1923|}} or {{pd/1923}} would do {{pd/1923|(author|translator) year of death}}, though {{pd/1923|1923}} would be the override. We would also still control the templates on a page under this mechanism. I personally would like to explore the recording of licence templates at WD rather than locally, as that is a far easier and resilient place to check for presence and absence. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mandate that we have a WD item for the work / edition (and all relevant individuals) in order to have the license appear at all? Doing so would require editors who wish to add a license on a work here to understand the procedures at WD in order to add the license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It requires the item to be present to pull that data, it doesn't require it to exist or compel a user to enter that data. Though once configured, one would think that it would also be readily bot-able. Bits of that could already be done using PLbot's harvest templates toollabs:pltools/harvesttemplatesbillinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking purely about the author page, where you just need to the death data; work pages would be harder. It might be nice to have a category of Author pages without WikiData information, so users willing to insert data into WikiData could find them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
See Category:Wikidata maintenance.— Mpaa (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Or Category:Author maintenanceMpaa (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently found Category:Works with unrecognised dates and started going through and trying to make them in line with what is described for the year field on {{header}}'s doc. There's a couple things I've noticed:

1. Dates
A number of pages have the full date of publication (mainly for transcriptions of speeches). Should there be a |date= field so that the date can be standardised/localised? Much like {{date}} tbh.
2. Unrecognised standard dates
In the {{header}} doc, it says:
Decades, centuries or periods can be used instead of a year (e.g. 1060s, 11th century or Medieval).
[...]
To use a approximate choice of two years, enter it as "Y/Y" (e.g. 1066/1067). This will display as it is written.}}
However, using either of these still makes it appear in the aforementioned category.
(Addendum: In the case of the latter where it spans multiple years, would it be better to show {year1}–{year2} and classify it as one of the years?)
Edit:
To use a tenuous year, enter it as "Y/?" (e.g. 1066/?). This will display as, for example, "1066?"
As can be seen on Cleansing Wave, this doesn't do what's documented.

-Einstein95 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• if full dates: move date to notes field, year should only be a year; full dates to wikidata if able

to the others, it sounds like "ugh", and some work is needed. :-/

billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

## Wikisource's birthday

According to Wikipedia, Wikisource was born on November 24, 2003. Would this be it's official birthday? It would then be turning 15 come November. Perhaps we could find a text begun that year to feature as FT for this November—ideally one that has been improved over the years. Is there a good way of generating a list of works created during 2003? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:AncientPages might work, but for some reason the earliest pages shown are from April 1, 2006, plus they all seem to be articles from reference works. C. F. 17:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
But oldwikisource:Special:AncientPages shows works from 19 October 2004. C. F. 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
See s:mul:User:Angela. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Came across Dovi's mention of an enWS anniversary as being 11 September 2005? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like these redlinks are some of the earliest listed works at the old WS—to include Kipling's "If—" Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We did the 10th Anniversary proofreading competition in November 2013 (WS:10) based on the 2003 date. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
a personal reflection here [1] and article w:Wikisource#Early_history -- Slowking4SvG's revenge

Rudyard Kipling's "If—" has come a long way since it was first added to Wikisource in November 2003 (one of the first WS adds). I have just linked the page to its 1910 source in Rewards and Fairies—which has yet to be proofread. I would like to eventually nominate the poem (not the whole work)—which could use validating—for Featured Text for November as it will mark the 15th anniversary (as I understand it to be, as per above) of Wikisource. Does only the poem itself need to be fully validated in order to be nominated (I will try to have the whole work proofread by then, but if not, I was just wondering...)? The WP excerpt in the notes section—should it stay or go? I figure if the poem makes Featured status, most of that info will go into the blurb anyway. Am I missing anything? Thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved struck content to Wikisource talk:Featured text candidates Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-3

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

## Marking updates... in a document...

This is a pragmatic response:- Page:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 1 (Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road). Designs 2009.pdf/8 Given that Part 3 (not currently on Wikisource, published subsequently, and available here-https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594446/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-08-part-03.pdf) published at a later date makes some amendments and updates a few cross references to more recent legislation or regulations.

Before I can continue adding revision annotations, I'd like a consensus on whether these should be added, or the document transcribed in it's 'as published' state, given that in other works annotations for subsequent revisions were not added.

If there's no consensus or objection, I'll revert the changes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

## Requesting permission to delete Index

Index:The Complete Poetical Works and Letters (1899).pdf has a very poor text layer &c., and I personally would not want to transcribe from it. I have created a new Index Index:The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats, 1899.djvu to replace it, and request permission to delete the former Index and associated pages. There are no longer any pages that link to its created Index:pages other than the Index itself. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This request makes sense to me, I don't know what kind of permission is required but you've got my vote. If and when the index is deleted, it sounds like the PDF file should be deleted from Commons as well, in favor of the DJVU. I'd be happy to put in a request over there if you'd like, just let me know. -Pete (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that permission is required, but ever plagued with self-doubt, I want to make sure I have dotted every i &c. before doing so. Another set of eyes on the particulars sometimes turns things up that I have overlooked. I'll let you know if a request to delete at Commons becomes a good thing. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please remind me what Speedy Delete reason I should give for deleting Index:pages in the manner proposed above? "Updated/deleted source file"? or "Redundant"? or other? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I use F8 Updated/deleted source file with the reason "changing from pdf to djvu" for this sort of thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, BWC. The Index and related pages have now been deleted here, so I suppose it is a "go" for you to request a Commons deletion. The File to delete is at Commons:File:The Complete Poetical Works and Letters (1899).pdf, and if needed for reference, the new (better) file is at Commons:File:The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats, 1899.djvu. Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Listed. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

## LintErrors

I've been trying to resolve some of this , but for some reason, fixing one of them seems to uncover others.

I'm essentialy reaching a stress point again... and would appreciate some support in ensureing pages don't break due to well intentioned 'fixes'.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts , can someone give me a list of what's broken? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
These for example show up with errors after my attempts to properly balance tags in them

I've now tried SEVERAL time to figure out why these are unbalanced in some ways, as the Linter extension is assumed not to be mis-detecting. Perhaps someone else can figure out what went wrong and silence the Linter extension which seems to be pedantic to the point of annoyance? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Annex E/table of contents - Putting a block into a span-style template is never going to work! So can someone suggest what an appropriate fix for this would be? Would providing the nominal documentation navigation in an alternative manner be appropriate?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at things just from your links is too hard, and to know the lint problems which you are discussing. The edit link each with their lintid are pertinent. Don't stress over it, not worth the effort. For some I am wondering whether it isn't the lint check itself may be the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
That was my concern as well. I'll use the lintid in future? Goes off to code a link template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

### Short Titles Act

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Short_Titles_Act_1896/First_Schedule/Pre_Union&action=edit&lintid=746406 Sigh. The monster of a template used to create this finally gave up. Maybe it's time to redo EVERY single entry in it manually :(, Where do I send the bill? XD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

With due respect that approach still isn't going to work, evidently need to step back further with an explanation.

Special:LintErrors has numbers of subsets looking at very different component and it also shows the type of error and an indicator of where it is seeing it. Knowledge of the type of error is clearly important if that is what we are going to fix. From that it shows the edit link and again contextualises that. All that said, when Lint shows the result of a page that is full of transcluded pages, it highly unlikely to be on the parent page and instead be in the subsidiary pages. Unfortunately the lint system is not sufficiently mature to identify the errors in the Page: ns regularly enough, and that has already been highlighted back to the developers. Still cannot help you, haven't dug into wherever you are seeing it, but personally don't think it is anything over which to be stressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

### Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes

And this has finally trigged my stress point again.... Can someone PLEASE find ONE approach on where to CONSISTENTLY place {{nop}} so that I'm not constantly having to go back and forth trying to figure out where stray DIV tags, linefeeds in the table headers and so on are coming from....

I've had problems with this particular work at least twice before and no satisfactory long term solution was ever reached. I've placed this work up for deletion on the basis that it's layout is 'experimental', and it would at this point be better to start again from scratch. Let's fix things like this once and for all, or decide such works are too complex to be transcribed , Okay? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

<and this is where I get frustrated as this has been covered multiple times and explained here and in our help pages. I don't know how to make it easier to explain.

• With continuing tables, in the body of a page: ns page a {{nop}} needs to start the body section, and then on a new line you start your table row; subsequently
• on the page where table continues over (the preceding page(s)), we do not terminate a page or a table with a new table row marker tr |- or with a cell marker td |. Primarily it is redundant and unnecessary code. Secondarily, it causes problems for the code for our style of page numbering with transclusions.

#### example

Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/850 as per this edit shows the underlying code as

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3.
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...


Note the third line where the header ends and the body starts and it shows that the row of the table will not be seen as a row as it does not start the line. Codewise what we need for this to be is

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3.
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...


and due to the vagaries of mediawiki, it needs to look like

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>{{nop}}
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3.
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...


aka

{{nop}}
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3.
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...


as the code has been known to swallow blank first lines.

Rider: There is code error in line 7 with || starting the line, so let us ignore that at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As an afterthough, what we probably may be able to do is to generate a {{nop}} equivalent that is just a fake templated statement that could be seen to sit into the style line of the table, and that is not a format-forcing line. We will need to have a play as putting in a forced blank class or style statement may ruin existing styling, so it just needs to be something table and formatting neutral. Ideas for {{nopt}} welcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is complicated by the sectionlisation. You seem to be saying it needs a {{nop}} after each section tag in the Page: body and not in the relevant Templates? {{Statute table}} should be placing a {{nop}} for each row (which to me seems like overkill). However on some pages this may have caused the Linter expression to see an error in respect of stray DIV's or P which are escaping. The {{nop}} at page start also causes the Page: where this situation arises to be erronously flagged as containing 'fostered' content. Should this specifc exception case be flagged as something Linter should ignore? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere at this point , it would be more straightforward to delete the current broken transclusion until there's a long term solution.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
In respect of something else you mentioned https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185203, I would appreciate your thoughts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I started updating some other tables I noted had some of the issues you mentioned, attempting to follow the advice you gave. Following that advice led to "Missing end tag" errors being recorded, despite there being no apparent mismatching present in the supplied markup.

Because this seems to be occuring on a number of pages when they are edited, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185221 has been opened.

As I've said previously, it would be nice to have ONE consistent approach from Mediawiki, that meant I don't have to spend hours playing hunt the estorica on every single edit made. At this point I am not just frustrated but disappointed that Mediawiki is having so much difficulty in rendering something which according to the advice you gave should not be giving errors at all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

### On nopt and other termination/continuation issues

I'd apparently raised a phab ticket on my own iniative back in April of last year... https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163073 If anyone want to reopen in , I have no objections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## Guidelines for removal of line breaks

Help:Beginner's guide to typography suggests it is best practice to remove any line breaks... Agreed. But it adds that it may be easier to do this after proofreading. I suggest that the latter note be eliminated, in that 1) it describes a matter of personal proofreading practices and 2) is ambiguous as to whether "after proofreading" means during validation or just prior to hitting the proofread button.

It is my opinion that line breaks ought to be removed during the first proofread process, for if left to a validator, it presents a possible distraction to other errors that may be present in the text. And new editors perhaps not familiar with guidelines may be completely unaware that line breaks ought to be removed at all (and validate as-is)—or as to technical issues that can arise when line breaks are kept. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I agree with everything written above. Jpez (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I have personally seen "validated" pages that don't have the linebreaks removed. Just a pet peeve, but one backed by guidelines. -Einstein95 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable enough (the text below). I like that it's a recommendation not a requirement, because sometimes it isn't a problem. -Pete (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not always a problem, but for me, like Einstein95 states, it is a pet peeve of mine. Often, I will not validate a page if whole paragraphs of line breaks remain. I may remove them, but will not mark the page as validated (in case I miss other errors for having been distracted by break removal). I am making an exception with the current PotM, however. I would like to see another short, quirky work get worked on before the end of the month! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a rewrite along the following lines:

Remove line breaks.
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. When transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is best practice to remove these line breaks. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. It is recommended that line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing to lessen distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:
[Alternate] Removal of line breaks.
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. Therefore, when transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is recommended that these line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing. Doing so at this stage lessens distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:

Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC) updated section content above Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

i kinda suppport. if you remove line breaks for the last paragraph, it displays correctly at page level. would not want to make it mandatory, although it is my current practice, i can leave more red pages with no line break fix, if you like. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't wish to make it about what I like. I'm just trying to simplify things by eliminating exceptions ("keep line breaks—if you likeas long as you eliminate them here and here and here") by keeping things tidy & uniform. I am at a loss to explain practically why I believe it is best practice to eliminate line breaks (I was hoping for help). At least, however, one paragraph "should" match another on a single page where line breaks are concerned. No need to leave red pages if it indeed has been proofread according to guidelines... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
well - we do need to delete the ghost soft carriage returns, so text will flow for the e-readers and phone use of digital document. if we have a tool that would be good too. we all agree should be done at validated, now debating as prerequisite for proofread step. (i have done both). Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Only encouraged/recommended at proofread step—for those not comfortable with making it mandatory. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment The guidance was given as some works are easier to proofread with original formatting, primarily the encyclopaedic-type works, eg. look at Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/387. I hesitate to direct where it doesn't break the formatting and we have some pretty good TemplateScript regex that make it easy to update. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is to "recommend" akin to "direct"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, current wording of the subject line "Remove line breaks." already implies the direction to remove. If that is not the "spirit" of the section, then I propose rewording the section title to read "Removal of line breaks" or simply "Line breaks". Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And in the case of collaborative efforts, shouldn't the practice—to remove or not to remove—be followed by all contributors within a single work just as with other formatting for uniformity purposes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I support the above idea of making it clearer in Help:Beginner's guide to typography, and it's always possible for individual works to have their own standards to follow. Perhaps some works are better off with the original linebreaks left in; if so, they can say so on their Index page I reckon. (In fact, this reminds me of something that I've wanted for a while: a standard boilerplate for works to use to specify what their local style guides are — e.g. line breaks, headings, etc....) But yeah, the default should be to remove them (I use a PageCleanUp toolbar button for that). Sam Wilson 08:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment For those that aren't aware there are tools that automatically get rid of these page breaks. For example Wikisource:Tools_and_scripts#PageCleanUp. I separate the paragraphs and then use this tool to get rid of all the line breaks. It also changes curly quotes, joins hyphenated words at line breaks, fixes some typos etc. Maybe this should be mentioned in the beginners guide also. Jpez (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the section wording above to include a mention of tools. If there is more than one tool that can be used for this purpose, it would be good to list it/them somewhere in the Beginner's guide or elsewhere so it can be properly linked to from the section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have also provided alternate wording of the section/section title above for those who favor a less stringent approach. Anyone is free to suggest different wording. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please point to any tools/methods other than PageCleanUp that can be used to remove line breaks? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I hacked together User:Inductiveload/LineCollapse.js from the cleanup script. It collapses line breaks and also removes hyphens from words hyphenated across line breaks. Use it like importScript('User:Inductiveload/LineCollapse.js');. The tool is added to the sidebar as it is a TemplateScript tool.
Note: For hyphenation, this is sometimes wrong (e.g. "antidis-|establishment" should be "antidisestablishment", but "forty-|two" shouldn't be "fortytwo"). This is a hard one to get right 100% of the time, you'd probably need a whitelist and some heuristics to even get rudimentary awareness of when hyphens should be retained, which is not worth it IMO since you still need to proofread and a wrongly-contracted word should show up under spellcheck anyway. Patches always welcome, however! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

## Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon 2018

A special edit-a-thon will be held at the English Wikivoyage through February 2018 to celebrate the fifth anniversary of Wikivoyage. The main goal of this edit-a-thon is to encourage new editors to share travel information at Wikivoyage. Anyone interested in contributing, whether by updating outdated information or by adding listings of prominent sites/businesses such as a prominent museums, restaurants or hotels, is more than welcome to participate in the edit-a-thon.

The edit-a-thon is going to be held at several other editions of Wikivoyage including the German, French, Spanish, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Portuguese, Hindi, Hebrew and the Chinese editions of Wikivoyage. In addition, the use of a central notice banner has been requested to promote the edit-a-thon. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The {{Atlantic Monthly link}} does not seem to be working properly. The issue number should link to the page for that issue, but it does not do so. Consider the documentation example

{{Atlantic Monthly link|link=The Birds of the Pasture and Forest|volume=2|number=7|year=1858}}


The (7) should link to The Atlantic Monthly/Volume 2/Number 7, but instead points to the incorrect The Atlantic Monthly/Number 7. Can anyone see how to repair this? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done problem was in underlying {{article link}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## Edit window font size

Is there a means to increase the font size in the edit window without increasing the font size in my browser? I can find nothing in the Preferences.

I find the font size in the edit windows here is suddenly much smaller than it used to be, even though all the other text still displays at sizes that it used to. This makes proofreading (or participating in discussion) difficult as I have to keep adjusting font size in my browser every time I go into or out of the editor, and I'd prefer not to do that. I assume that other readers and editors with vision problems could be facing similar challenges.

I first noticed this problem late last week, but did not post at that time and have been recovering the the flu since then. Did someone mess with something fundamental again? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

the editing preference page is where you control the typeface, and I use monospaced and it gives me a decent font size. Otherwise you will have to modify the font-size element through editing your special:mypage/common.css for the editing box
<textarea tabindex="1" accesskey="," id="wpTextbox1" cols="80" rows="25" style="" class="mw-editfont-monospace" lang="en" dir="ltr" name="wpTextbox1">

billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Monospace gives me a decent font size but is utterly worthless for working with Greek text, which becomes unrecognizable in the monospace font. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
have you tried Wikisource:WikisourceMono? that appears to change font on the style sheet. or a different skin? monobook seems larger to me, or even timeless. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not yet. I wanted to to first find out why this has changed recently (and all of a sudden) for me, and to find out what solutions there might be. But checking Monobook, it does not solve the problem. Nor does Timeless solve the problem; and it worsens the issue by reducing available screen space for side-by-side editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
here is an old discussion about fonts Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-01#What_is_the_mediawiki_code_editor's_font-style_and_size? -- my appearance gets tweaked all the time, what with zoom in / out; tech update. the timeless skin does do the "flat sidebar gadget" over at wikipedia (giving more room for side by side) alas does not work here. if customizing script, you could try different fonts, and pick one that has greek support. i’m trying to save my grumpiness for the culture, and not the tech, as that is out of my control (other than wishlist). Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm largely clueless about editing preferences manually. I would probably need to have someone tell me exactly what code to edit and exactly how and exactly where in order to achiieve the resuts I needed. Apologies for the typos; I'm not going to keep messing with the browser settings in order to see what I'm typing. (I can see there is red, but I can't read the text that's underlined at that size.
It really seems to me that (a) font size for a given fount should remain the same whether reading or editing, and not have a 70-80% difference in size between the two, and (b) adjusting font size should be a simple thing to deal with, as editing is a fundamental part of all MW projects, and (c) given the supposed desire to accomodate people with disabilities such as vision impairment. Suddenly dropping people's edit font size to 70% or so is counter to that. I have now verified that this problem affects me on all projects where I edit, so it is a general MW change that happened at some point about a week ago. I'll be following this thread, but otherwise, the annoyance and eyestrain are too much for me. I have to take a wikibreak from all editing until this problem can be sorted out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been numbers of modernisations/standardisations happening over months as they convert to OOUI style. I am _guessing_ that this is an artefact of those changes with the vector skin, though you would need to look to through the recent upgrades at mw: and search for what is happening. Monobook and monospaced has had no apparent changes, so I cannot comment on specific changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I could look through the upgrades, but I would be none the wiser because I would not understand anything I was reading. Guess I'm stuck not editing then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is straightforward with your user CSS (it's what it's for). The following increases serif fonts in the editor by 20%:
.mw-editfont-serif {
font-size: 120%;
}

You can have different settings for ".mw-editfont-serif", ".mw-editfont-sans-serif" and ".mw-editfont-monospace" if you like (you could change font, colour, weight, size, line spacing, whatever). Just add the CSS to User:EncycloPetey/common.css. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
here is the phabricator https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T182320 ; here is the mediawiki https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing/Projects/Font_size_in_the_editing_window -- i feel you pain, they need to stop tweaking the interface, or make it easier to adjust settings, without having to know code. it is not straightforward. (that is basic UX project management practice) Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I have posted a summary of the problems I'm experiencing in the thread on mediawiki. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## Formatting UK legislation...

ON a slightly more positive note.

In checking back on something, I happened to look into the CSS style-sheet used at legislation.gov.uk. What's noted is that apparently the Style Sheet has an OGL notice on it. This means potentially that if someone had the interest, it may be possible to implement a set of appropriate classes to format UK legislation on Wikisource in the same way it appears on the official site. ( A quick glance at some of the page source suggests classed spans are used to do the numbering for some "paragraphs" much in the way sidesnotes are 'partially' supported on Wikisource at present.

I'd made some previous efforts in trying to get templates like {{cl-act-paragraph}} working, but was eventually running up against mediawiki.

Perhaps someone that is technically able could like into overhauling the {{cl-act-paragraph}} and {{uksi}} families into something that's genuinely usable, longer term?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

On a related, someone on IRC noted that the UK Government had seemingly placed some technical information as to how legislation.gov.uk worked internally on Github [8] (effectively it's a set of XML Schema and CSS.), Not directly usuable, but it may give some hints on how the Cl-act, family of templates could be re-worked.. It's interesting to note that they in one of the XSL sheets the back end content is being converting to DIV's not paragraphs as the template does currently.. Hmmm.... The previous version of the problematic {{cl-act-paragraph}} was using a div based approach until complications arose. ...

It would need a VERY experienced coder to make sense of it, but I remain hopeful that if such a person exists, it should be possible to display any UK legislation on Wikisource in an identical way to the official site. (Albiet not necessarily exactly like any given printed scan though) (But then sometimes there have to be compromises.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

## Wikibible editors wanted

The wikibible project, located at Translation:Bible is in need of editors, especially those that know Hebrew and Greek(Latin and Syriac/Ethiopian knowers are also appreciated).

In addition, the bible transcription projects could also use editors(see Bible and also look for transcription indexes for the translation you want to work on). Most useful are editors who understand archaic typography, though there are multiple translations that use modern typography and still aren't done(or even close). JustinCB (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## {{copyright until}} template broken by SDrewthbot

Going through Category:Pages claiming copyright without date and found this edit which broke the templates back in 2015. Thought I'd bring it to attention as I'm not sure if was aware of it. -Einstein95 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

again here as well: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author:James_Thurber&diff=5668150&oldid=4827554 -Einstein95 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
User talk:SDrewthbot would be a good starting point. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

## Lua coder sought..

Are there any Lua coders active on Wikisource?

I had some tables currently generated by a series of templates, that for performance reasons and layout concerns might be better generated using a suitable module.

Matters are complicated by the need for the relevant generated tables to be 'sectionalised' as the entire table cannot be transcluded in one go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Andy doesn't edit here much but he's been very helpful to me with issues like this elsewhere. If he has the time and energy, he's my go-to. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm OK at templates, but I'm not a Lua coder; try asking on Wikipedia talk:Lua. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to look at Special:LintErrors, and try figure out why certain templates cause the Linter extension to have concerns? ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

## Notifying the community about a Bot Request

It would be nice to have some indication of just how much breakage the parser migration is going to cause.

Attempting to have a break from editing, but on checking in I keep seeing works I put considerable effort into showing up in Special:Linterrors ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

## Important, fascinating and timely transcription: US House interview with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson

All,

I'd like to request some help with a project. Yesterday, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released an unredacted transcript of its interview with Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, concerning the "Trump dossier".

It's a truly fascinating document, outlining many details of how the Trump Organization does business. It's already been widely covered in the media, but there are many aspects of the 165 page document that have not received much attention. I believe this is a rare case where a solid and timely Wikisource transcription could have a significant impact. Researchers and journalists could do machine translation, search, etc. on a Wikisource transcription, more easily than on the OCR'd PDF document released by the government.

Currently, there are two of us (myself and Jasonanaggie) actively working on it, and we're about halfway done with proofreading (and about a quarter of the way through validation). It's a pretty easy project, the OCR is highly accurate. Even one additional set of eyes would significantly speed up the process. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The House transcript is redacted in certain places: some interviewers' names are themselves redacted throughout the document. Pete's request should extend to validating the Senate Judiciary Committee Interview of Glenn Simpson as well. Mahir256 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mahir. Just to be clear-
1. What I meant by "unredacted" is that the substance of the testimony is entirely (or at least mostly, perhaps I've missed something) unredacted. The redactions, as far as I've seen, are limited to the names of lower-level government staffers and lawyers. I don't believe any of the testimony of the interviewee has been redacted, which I find remarkable for a document like this.
2. As for what my request is, of course validating the Senate testimony would be worthwhile, but I find the House testimony more interesting, and in my view getting all the pages proofread is a higher priority than validation. The Senate testimony is fully proofread, but we're only about halfway through on the House testimony.
Anyway, thanks for your interest Mahir. I'm not arguing with your statements, just trying to be clear about what mine are. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

## Parser migration issues ; Identifying "Interrupted phrasing" due to mis-nested templates, or tags?

Having learnt a little bit more, and testing something. It was found that a not inconsiderable number of the concerns identifed by the Linter extension are due to attempting to place a block level element (such as P, DIV, IMG, TABLE, UL, OL, LI) inside a span (or phrasing style) level element. This understandably leads to the potential for malformed HTML5 to be generated.

In my somewhat limited efforts, I've encountered pages where this mis-nesting occurs because an attempt or usage has been made template that uses a block level element (typical a DIV), inside (or as a parameter to) a template which uses a span to wrap the relevant content.

With that in mind it would be appreciated that over time (it's not a high priority) additional information was noted (ideally as part of the template documentation as to whether the template is block or span based (i.e whether its phrasing based or not per HTML5 models), or consideration given to a hireachy chart of templates so it's easier for those proofreading to note where something like {{larger|{{rh||Heading|Page_num}} should ideally be replaced with {{rh||{{larger|Heading}}|{{larger|Page_num}}}}.

It is also noted that currently using [[File:name|size|caption]] inside a span is also considered bad structuring because on examining the HMTL generated, mediawiki in many instances wraps the IMG tag generated in a series of DIV's. It may also be that unless told otherwise some browsers treat IMG as a block level element in it's own right. Is there a way to generate the relevant A/IMG pair without the wrapping diffs (one use case being an image that is inlined, perhaps to show a rare character which is not easily supported purely by text.)?

I encountered this issue when trying to use {{anchor+}} to make an image itself an anchor point, {{anchor+|fig3.1|[[File:figure3.1svg|500px|center]]}} for example is NOT going to work given that {{anchor}} on which it is based uses a classed span to create the anchor. The current work-around is to replace instances of this with usage with {{Anchor|fig3.1}}[[File:figure3.1svg|500px|center]] which solves the immediate Linter concern, essentialy moving the IMG (and wrapping DIV's outside the anchor templates generated span.

(Aside: Longer term and following a disscussion on the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel, the possibility of an a, @, anchor option in File synatx was raised. No phabricator ticket has been filed on this as it would need further discussion.)

My apologies for my some heated initial responses to such issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

But having played another round of hunt the pednatic minutiae I've had enough - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=7206988, thanks to the parser migration issues you've potentially lost a long-term contributor, whose reached frustration point with respect to feeling obligated to "repair" many of their past contributions. I am however more than happy to continue repairing stuff, when
• The tools flagging up concerns are able to identify the precise point in a page where the concern is, a generic "Not from single template" does not aid this in any manner, Nor does in-effective highlighting.
• There is a consistent and clearly DOCUMENTED behavior for things like table continuations over multiple pages, how whitespace is dealt with in all situations, which templates can and can't be nested in each other &c. &c.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

### Migration user guide

I've taken a look at a few of the linter errors (out of the ~500k that are reported). Many of them appear to be essentially "harmless", as the two parsers appear to produce (visually at least) the same results. You can check with the Parser migration tool in Preferences under Editing. Any case where the two parsers agree that that wikitext is not quite right, but still produce the same output is not a worry. For example, obsolete tags and table continuations causing fostered content with nops is rendered the same. Nice to fix, but not going to explode soon.

I have written a quick guide at User:Inductiveload/Parser migration to describe some of the errors, the tools you can use to localise them, and what you can do about them. If anyone wants to recycle it for a proper help page, they're welcome to any part of it.

Probably the most important one is the use of block formatting inside span-based elements. This does actually cause breakage of the output under common use cases like this:

{{larger|Line 1

Line 2}}


In the new parser, only the first line will be larger. For templates that increase the font size, a simple replacement with the block equivalent like {{larger block}} should suffice. For going smaller, the block templates affect line height where the span templates would not. An alternative is to use the span templates, but one per line and leave the paragraph breaks on the outside of the span.

The problem is there are something like 15k pages with this linter error on them, and I not sure it's a trivial bot job, though, perhaps it is not that hard. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have had a look at lots of examples and it doesn't look easily and reproducibly bot'able if we wish to remain 100% true to the work formatting, due to some of the differences in line height. That said it is the perfection to the word that is important and slight variation in formatting is not going to be horrendous, so I don't believe that this section is that not problematic where it is the size-related formatting and contained to one page. Where formatting starts on one page and finishes on the next, or some subsequent page, bots just know the problem that they see on a per page level, they are not aware of the impact of text previous or subsequent pages.
The biggest fail with the converting to the block templates is where the formatting has been applied to multiple paragraphs or a complete page. So rather than properly use a {{.../s}} {{.../e}} pair they use the span templates for single or multiple paras. So we would need to check for \n commencement/termination if botting. The pages with a starting and closing span size template need to have those templates pushed to header and footer, though eyeballing all the curly brackets on a page and knowing the start and finishes is less than perfect.
My anecdotal evaluation of the biggest use of the problematic span templates that wrap <p> or <div> is with title pages, and with quoted texts. Title pages are pretty easy to identify and then resolve. The quotations and the weird uses, not so. If we know that it is contained to a page, then it just affects the view of the text, if we get the replacements wrong, then we run the risk of broken templates, and sometimes these only show when you transclude, not at the Page:ns level.
Anyway, that is my initial feedback from doing about some thousands or so of these cleanups. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC
Follow-up. The output of these special lint filters are not visible to tools like AWB to build lists. Or it may be more accurate to say that AWB cannot pull these lists, so that is a hindrance. Similarly, the produced error pages have superfluous text, so you cannot even easily copy and paste to pull a list. So their access to bots I have found problematic. So is there a means to pull lists of pages, without gumph via the api? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It turn out there is a linter API, for example a list of mis-nested tags which will break can be found at https://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=linterrors&format=json&lntcategories=html5-misnesting
API documentation is at the extension page at MediaWiki (not the Help page): mw:Extension:Linter#API Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Support requested to pywikibot: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185519 .— Mpaa (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Example of a page where we need to block and to /s /e https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:EB1911_-_Volume_06.djvu/162&action=edit&lintid=507667

## Tech News: 2018-04

23:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

## Indentation

Hi. How can I indent a title? I mean what template do you have here which I can use in Persian wikisource so to indent the title you see in this page to look like the source? --Yousef (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about "دیپلوماسی", try {{float left}} and {{float right}}. Mahir256 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Would that give the desired padding? For one work—although not a template—I used (as suggested by another contributor) <span style="float:left;font-size:smaller;line-height:100%;margin:0.7em 1em 0.7em 0;width:7em;">'''TITLE'''</span>. It behaved well no matter the length of the title. Just an option. There may be a better one. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. The template didn't work but the HTML tag worked perfectly. --Yousef (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you come to find that a single word is longer than the 7em width setting resulting in overlapping of text, merely adjust the width length. You probably know this already. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend that you try and implement a template for this sort of issue. A template allows for a more standardise presentation, and as we are finding out with linter errors, that it allows for easier fixing. I also see that we are learning that rigour on div and span usage and knowledge to the community is important. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

## Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-01

00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

## Esoterica in regard to Proofread page....(and yes this is also partly Linter and RmexHTML related)....

1. Currently proofread page uses this as a header sequence: <noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="ShakespeareFan00" /></noinclude> to give an example. However I have had instances where I am wanting to put content in the main body of a page, that isn't necessarily header content, but not have that content transcluded (such as table "ribbon" headers, continuation text from an item on a previous page where it wouldn't make sense to put that content directly into the transcluded version and so on.). Why does Proofread page not have <noinclude element="header"> , <noinclude element="footer"> defined for the 'special' regions, which would be less confused with standard <noinclude></noinclude> at the very start or end of a "body" of page text?

2. Something that I am also still having trouble figuring out is just where line feeds occur, and am in respect of various of my templates wondering if {{nop}}, {{nopt}} etc should be replaced with precisely defined item-termination or item-continuation parser functions. One of the issues identified elsewhere was the need to do things like the templates mentioned because there's no in markup way to tell the parser the previous item's ended... A nop isn't needed so much as "Yes the item being transcluded on the previous page has finished", Unwind back to the appropriate level tag closing/wrapping as needed, and start reading any following markup as though it was on a new line.. Experimentally {{nopt}} may work in some cases, but an explict "I've finished/not finished this item" marker implemented to tell the parser to change it's handling would to me be far better than trying to force line feeds using implied white-space or "interruption" by block elements (the current approach in {{nop}}.

I'd appreciate some feedback as when and where to put in or take out whitespace to get templates working as intended can get very confsuing very quickly..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to handle having <noinclude> at the beginning of the body just fine. You need to actually put the <noinclude> tag there, it doesn't happen automatically like in the header and footer, but it doesn't brake either. {{nop}} and {{nopt}} just stop the newline from being swallowed by the software during the transclusion process(so if you have a template that needs to end with a newline, put {{nop}} or {{nopt}} by itself on the newline[they're also used in the Page: namespace for the same reason because pages get transcluded as well]). Sometimes if you have white space(specifically new lines) within a template, it can brake, but you can use "<--"(without the quotes) at the end of the line and "-->"(again without the quotes) at the beginning of a line(this is if you want newlines for readability, &c.). If you have a more specific question, ask it and someone can answer it for you). JustinCB (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

## {{cl-act-paragraph}} desired behaviour for split=table in rewrite(User:JustinCB/cl-act-p)

Anybody knowledgeable and/or with a vested interest in this template, what is the desired behavior for split=table ? Do you want it to cause the template to be able to contain a table & use other values(ex. split=table-start) for handling if it's starting, continuing, or ending, or do you want it to pass through like it does(which doesn't allow it to apply styles to the table[margins, indent, &c.])? Any feedback will be appreciated. JustinCB (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Building single function complex templates is generally only of interest and understandable to the user. Getting someone else to try and resolve something that is very specific in context is difficult, laborious and time-consuming; and not necessarily of value to other requirements on site. Most of us writing more complex templates will break a templates function down into parts utilising subpages. Look at something like Template:Collaboration and have a look at its page information. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

## Page:Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/35

In good faith I replaced the {{nop}} I had been using here with a {{nopt}}. The result was in: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Public_General_Statutes_1896.djvu/35&oldid=7221293

I'd already subst my header template and the rows for performance reasons, and I can't see an obvious whitespace that's leaking in. Perhaps some other more experienced contributors will be able to comment? (It seems hard to get a consistent rendering between a Page: and mainspace...)

As I've said repeatedly in the past, expecting contributors to know precise whitespace handling rules is perhaps unreasonable.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

## Shakespeare's Works

Does anyone know of a 'good' (i.e., 'authoritative') complete set of Shakespeare's works at IA that are not riddled with notes/footnotes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This one looks good on a quick perusal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that we already have Index:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910.djvu. I'll take a look at it as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The First Folio has been done a lot. It's got a limited audience that's probably transcriptions with copies of the First Folio. Shakespeare has several, sometimes very distinct, early editions, and much academic interest producing new consensus editions, so it's hard for us to produce a truly useful text, and I hardly see how producing an unannotated version helps that one bit. Some discussion at Distributed Proofreaders indicated that the Yale Shakespeare might be the most authoritative PD Shakespeare. It's a huge task, and ease of finding scans should not be a big part of it. We can download from HathiTrust, or even possibly scan some stuff ourselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. My motivation is that I would like to read the works myself, and I might as well do that as I edit to benefit not only myself, but to improve what we have here at Wikisource (and getting the works backed by scans)—which is why I am seeking opinions on versions. I know little to nothing about his works, but if I can be pointed in the right direction, I'll do the work! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. How about the "New Variorum" volumes by Shakespearian scholar Horace Howard Furness?
That sounds great. Do you want me to load it for you, or have you got that?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If you think it is a good, useful set, I can do it... I have a a few works on my plate at the moment, and a possible upcoming move that may affect what I can proofread in the future, so once I figure all that out, I'll give it a go. Lots of notes in those volumes, which I wanted to avoid, but whatever is most valuable/useful to have here. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

## Sound file to Commons question

I have saved a sound file (ogg and mp3) derived from Lily Pond sheet music created with 's help at my sandbox. The sheet music is based on public domain material, but the sound file incorporates corrections and tweaks to the original for output. Can I upload the sound file to Commons, and if so, what license should I apply? and should I upload an ogg or mp3 version? Thanks for any help/insight, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would presume that the license is however you or want to license it as, due to modifications of public-domain works being able to be copyrighted by the modifier (https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/trouble-spots/#public_domain_works_that_are_modified). The original source does not legally have to be given, however it is in good faith to do so. -Einstein95 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes to upload to Commons, and you are moving into c:Commons:Derivative works territory, so step through that. Some thoughts to explore, not answers ... I would look to the licensing of the spoken articles from WP that have been uploaded to Commons, and maybe mimic what they have done. My gut feel is that we would do something like wrap the original license in a shell license like we can do with scans ... {{PD-scan|PD-old}}, so poke {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-art}}and look in shared cats if the derivative works page doesn't give suitable guidance. Other things that we could consider are what other computer-generated works are at Commons and their licensing. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both... I briefly searched for other Lily Pond-generated works uploaded to Commons, but not in depth... This will likely take me some time, and I will wait to hear as well from BWC for their input as collaborator. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I've used {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} for the few .ogg files that I've derived and uploaded to Commons. e.g. File:Cox and Box Overture audio.ogg and File:The Fair (Gurlitt).ogg. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
While the notes will be "off" in the following output, I use it as an example to illustrate how I tweaked bar 32 using scale durations for the sound file. My formatting might be technically incorrect, but it plays well. Is that acceptable? or do you think we should use this version (which is a copy of the original with corrections for sound) without my scale duration tweaking of bar 32? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I have created an Index page for Nocturnes Op. 9 (Kistner version) here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sound files at Commons (both versions) below. Please tweak information as necessary. Hope I have done so correctly. Bar 32 differences featured at 2:55 for comparison. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The tempo for the cadenza is marked as senza tempo—which is Italian for "without tempo". This means that the figure should not be played in strict time—which is what the auto-generation does. This means that tweaking the tempi of bar 32 for the sound file is more than acceptable and should be done to provide a realistic performance of the work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO (and an O is all it is), you might consider using the CC-0 "license" (or, more technically, "dedication") for your creative additions. What others have said above is true, you can legally attach any copyright license you like to your derivatives of a PD source; but CC-0, which attaches no requirements whatsoever, is the most friendly to reuse and modification.

And...looks like a cool project, I'm looking forward to listening to the files! You can't upload MP3 to Commons, but OGG should be just fine. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If the files are already here, try using Move to Commons but make sure there is a compatible license in the summary. This tool has the advantage of doing much of the work for you but you’ll need to tidy up the description page on Commons afterwards. Ping me if you need help with any of it. Green Giant (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded the files directly to Commons (see Commons links above). Feel free to check the descriptions for errors! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Ack! My bad. I missed that. I’ve tidied up the file pages, particularly to make the authorship clearer, and removed self from the license (it says "I", but doesn’t have the capacity to say "We" yet). Green Giant (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-05

17:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

## Renaming State of the Union addresses

I cannot find a place to request moving (like the process in Wikipdida). So I bring this issue here. Currently the State of the Union addresses (see Category:State of the Union addresses) are named by President names and times (e.g., John F. Kennedy's First State of the Union Address, Barack Obama's Second State of the Union Address, etc.). However, it's controversial whether a President's speech to the Joint Session of Congress in the first year of his presidency can be seen as a "State of the Union address". Donald Trump's First State of the Union Address was moved to Donald Trump's Address to a Joint Session of Congress, and Donald Trump's First State of the Union Address was even nominated for speedy deletion. If the first-year speech should not be named the President's "First State of the Union Address", then all the other State of the Union addresses should be renamed by times (Second changed to be First, Third changed to be Second, and so on). But this solution might confuse many readers. I suggest naming the State of the Union addresses simply by year (e.g., 2018 State of the Union Address), following Wikipedia's style. By the way, could Wikisource have a specific place for discussing requested moves? I apologize if there is already one. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: I agree that there needs to be consistency in the naming but disagree with using years. Readers are more likely to search by President than by year. The Wikipedia style still misses out the 1971, 1989, 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017 addresses for example, because they are not regarded as State of the Union addresses. Note also that Wikipedia currently has 113 SOTU articles whereas Wikisource currently has 232 pages, and it would make unnecessary work to expect one to follow the other. Traditionally, the US president does not make an official State of the Union address until the end of their first year in office. Please look at what the media reports have been calling the latest address by President Trump e.g. ABC, Business Insider, CBS, CNN, or Fox (whichever news source you prefer). This was the reason I asked for the speedy deletion and the move. Green Giant (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the 1989, 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017 addresses should not be named "State of the Union Address" and should no be included in Category:State of the Union addresses (just like the Wikipedia style). But naming by President and time may confuse those readers who do see the addresses in these years as "State of the Union" addresses (e.g., those editors who created those pages at Wikisource). And I myself search the State of Union address by year, not by President. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that readers are more likely to search by President than by year. Naming by year is clearer and less confusing to me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Yes, to your question about the name and that several pages are wrongly named. In terms of searching for an address, don’t you think people might look for JFK's last SOTU rather than the 1963 SOTU? I think it’s just more memorable by author or subject matter. Let me give another example. You may have heard of Winston Churchill's famous "We shall fight on the beaches" speech. I would warrant that there are more people who know that it was a rousing speech by Churchill during WWII than people who know exactly which year he made it in (even if they’ve avidly watched the recent movie). For the rest of your comment, well believe me, I’m a long-term Categorist/Structurist and I thought similarly to your proposal but I’ve come to appreciate that Wikisource has a different approach, which can be mystifying at first but given time it is understandable. On any of these articles/pages, there are three determining parameters, namely it is a State of the Union address (subject), who gave the address (author), and which year it was given (date), right? On Wikipedia, the primary parameter is the subject, which is why there is an article on the State of the Union. On Wikisource, the primary parameter is the author, and works are listed on the corresponding author page e.g. Author:Barack Obama#Addresses to Congress. This is why there isn’t a corresponding State of the Union page here but there is a Portal:State of the Union Speeches by United States Presidents listing them by chronological order. The date is a secondary parameter in both wikis and is useful for categorisation purposes. I don’t think we should rename 232 pages using just years as identifying parameters but I would suggest a compromise of naming them in the style of Donald Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address. This would remove the ambiguity about whether it is the first, second or third. Green Giant (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Naming them by President plus year (e.g., Donald Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address) sounds great. It indeed avoids the ambiguity. I support your suggestion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
do a redirect. the wikipedia propensity for arguing about naming conventions seems out of place here. the congressional record calls it: "THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (House of Representatives - January 29, 2002)" [31] Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
But there are apparently more than one "STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES". The issue discussed here is how to distinguish them, by series ordinal (First, Second, etc.) or by year (2016, 2018, etc.). What do you think of it? Do you mean using the full title of the congressional record, e.g., "THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (House of Representatives - January 29, 2002)"? If so, the current Wikisource pages should also be renamed. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Q47346081 works for me. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47346081 Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean? The Wikisource link at Wikidata's Q47346081 is Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018. Do you mean you support the style of "Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018", or support Q47346081's English label "2018 State of the Union Address"? --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Traditionally we like works to have the name of the presentation as published, and then do redirects to the casual nomenclaure used to identify the work. I don't like nominals and would prefer that we have actual years. In the final washup I don't personally care, those in the know politely work it out among yourselves, and put forward a before and after list of moves, and we can undertake them, and resolve any double redirects. I would suggest that Portal talk:Presidents of the United States is the preferred space for your conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
To note that we also need to remove possible ambiguity about addresses of other countries and their presidential speeches or whatever is produced. It may be why some are like they are, or just continuing what was first place so many years ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

## Strange business with Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier

I have a strange situation with Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier. Following a Match & Split on Chapter III, the page itself seems to still have the text of the entire book on it; however, when I click "edit" I see only a pages index going up through page 23, and no further text on the page after that. I've tried two different browsers, and tried viewing while logged out, so I don't think the issue is specific to me. I also tried purging the cache, to no avail. Any ideas what's going on and how to fix it? -Pete (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Done Sorry, it was a simple issue...the M&S process had stuck all the extra text on the last page it matched. On the path to fixing it up now... -Pete (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

## Discussion: ScienceSource proposal

At #ScienceSource proposal, Charles Matthews (talkcontribs) (re-)introduces a discussion.

Charles, to note that your previous announcement from October 2017 and this announcement look worlds apart, so that may be why there has been no commentary. Can I suggest that there may be an extended summation on why Wikisource should pay attention to the discussion; its relevance to WS; and where there is significant difference or roadblocks from what we have.

From my point of view the previous additions of open source science papers got stuck for a number of reasons. 1) What we wanted for enWS to match our existing collection was not a priority for the bot operators (they wanted a site to dump within WMF, we wanted something was aligning with existing works, configuration and data management) 2) This was highlighted in the lack of an interfacing collaborator to align the needs of the proponents and enWS, and finding that resource internally to WS with knowledge and capacity for such a large project was not available (huge commitment from smaller pool where already undertaking existing interests) 3) If they are coming into an existing site, bringing some technology, power, tools, etc. that can be utilised and enhance what exists are more likely to lure people from existing projects.

Note that these additions are still sitting in the Wikisource: namespace, and pretty much untended. How much they are viewed is unknown. In the end the differences between the approaches was that what was proposed was a bot addition of works in a flat manner, with no evidence of interlinking or curation. Curation and some of the finer details is relevant to numbers of contributors, so the clash of cultures is pertinent when looking to integrate matters of suitable difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt. I'll try to supply some of the missing links.
Last year I had a Wikimedian in Residence position, at the w:Betty and Gordon Moore Library, supported by ContentMine Ltd., which is a non-profit tech startup in Cambridge, England. It enabled me to connect some of the dots, by absorbing some librarians' concerns about the current scientific literature, and its open access subset. It introduced me to the text and data mining world as a tech subculture; where previously I had been absorbing the semantic web tech subculture that comes with Wikidata. I was on Wikidata from late 2014, taken there by work on the ODNB, the updated version of the DNB that brought me to Wikisource in 2009.
There was a Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, and I attended. User:Daniel Mietchen advocated for more open access papers on Wikisource, and basically for repurposing Wikisource (all languages, which matters, since English does not dominate Wikisource at this time) to include open access papers as basic to the mission. (I paraphrase.) I knew, from the Vienna Wikisource conference in 2015, that people from French and German Wikisources have little interest in this direction. Indeed, I made the point that Wikisource starts with digitisation, and really on the community level that is still the focus.
That does not mean that I think Daniel's line of thinking lacks merit. The librarians' view is that text and data mining, of open access scientific literature and maybe more, should be happening; and they see the issue as one of barriers to entry to that field. Such as tech and intellectual property issues coming from the publishers' side, and this leads down a blame-game route, and a pile-on directed at Elsevier (I simplify). I was sharing an office at the Moore Library with one of the younger generation of librarians who regards this area as key to the future of the profession. I spoke at a text and data mining conference in Cambridge in July, where these points were hashed over.
My take is different. Namely:
(a) The text and data mining (TDM) world and the semantic web world have little contact, mainly because TDM is close to the black boxes of machine learning, which kill semantic content (while making you rich);
(b) Such contact as I'm aware of comes through WMF-funded projects (the ContentMine one, and a couple of others);
(c) The "barriers to entry" debate is big-scale politics and lobbying and trying to change the contractual and legislative climate, while on the other hand one can try actually to do some doable stuff, within the Wikimedia movement;
(d) There are nuances to TDM, which starts off maybe as a kind of sledgehammer for doing search, and also to semi-automation (e.g. gamification) as a way of uploading statements into Wikidata. Some common ground can be found in the technical side of annotation.
So, I have been working within ContentMine (now as a volunteer), to present a project that is a TDM platform, and is Wikisource-like in the sense of a wiki way of working on sources (with annotation in place of digitisation). And is tied to Wikipedia-like concerns on reliable sources. Grants aren't given to prototype platforms as such: you have to answer the question "what is it for?" in a convincing way.
I'd like to make the final point that science publishers are interested in adding a "value layer" to their papers, and Elsevier piloted a version last year. We have that here, in the convention about "light wikilinking". The publishers alone will not create a platform for a big cross-section of the scientific literature: why should they take an interest in papers they didn't publish? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
One of my problems is mixing modern and old stuff in a copyright-bound library like ours tends to produce very uneven collections. Dig through Project Gutenberg for the copyrighted works, and besides a few modern translations, you get a few propaganda pieces and other stuff that doesn't generally fit the tone of the collection. I've looked through public library catalogs that have etext collections indexed in, and you force people to separate out the four "Learn C# in 30 Days!" from dozens of "Interpolating ancient beetle reports using H. Gray's Coccinellidae collection: a C# approach", and the additions are more trouble than they're worth. Wikisource has a more mixed collection, but I'm afraid that dumping a large collection of text here will overwhelm the people trying to work on older texts and drive them away. I'm fine with the collection, but not as a part of Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
go dump them; it will not drive me away, rather other factors will do that. we need to be open to new transformative uses of the project, or we may go the way of wikinews. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
We may go the way of Wikinews? We aren't a company; we don't have to do whatever we can to turn a profit. Other projects can and should be made instead of trying to transform Wikinews or Wikisource into something they're not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the distinctives for the Wikisources is scan-backed text and yet we are talking here about "dumping" text that is not verifiable without going off to some other site—if that other site is not behind a pay-wall. Here at enWS we have only just reached 45% of the mainspace with a backing scan and the battle to decrease the large corpus of texts that are not scan-backed is offset most days by the addition of the effusions of the current incumbent of the Oval Office, along with various stories and texts copied from somewhere else. The addition of a further corpus of scientific papers without scans will not improve matters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a totally solvable problem: just make validated pages protected and if really necessary, have some process for including screenshots. The reality is that many texts are digitally-native or were not originally encoded as text in the first place (e.g. speeches) and Wikisource serves a valuable purpose presenting those as well as things in ink on dead trees. The validation-protection is totally legit since there is very little need to edit pages once validated and if it's really necessary, someone can post to the talk page or an admin board. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
At enWS we need to accept that modern works are paperless, and as such they will be electronic documents along which will/should not need proofreading, though maybe they will need formatting. We do have the scope with Wikidata for such works to be identified as "digital document", and that maybe some of the requisite components. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with the addition of properly curated texts that are verifiable by a reader—provided that they meet WS:WWI. I also know that we will never reach 100% scan-backing here; 75% might be the best we can do. I was responding to the suggestion of "dumping" texts here. I'm aware that this is not Charles' intention, but it was mooted in the discussion above. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I personally am not talking about introducing scientific papers here. Rather the opposite: I'd like to work on scientific papers, as a research project, on a custom platform. I think one thing that could come out of it, that could be of interest to Wikisource, is a style of annotation that would be independent of text type. w:Web annotation has not taken a real grip within Wikimedia, though there are certainly possible applications (e.g. m:Collaborative Machine Translation for Wikipedia); and it has not been adopted here, in the sense that Wikisource:Annotations remains in limbo as a possible guideline.
The "corpus" and "annotation" issues might actually be in a chicken-and-egg relationship, in that adding value to texts by annotation may not have apparent value in small samples.
In any case, it is certainly not that I don't value traditional Wikisource proof-reading. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

et al

• Proofreading is a concept of OCR being imperfect. I don't think that it should define us as a site. It is a means to transcribe works only. That is a way to become a less relevant corner of the site where some will be comfortable but not reach our goal of being a library.
• I do think that we should be hosting published scientific works—not some little niche for works of a certain generation
• Our issue about annotation has always been how to do it AND still present the work in its original context. So the discussion is about the how, not the whether. We failed due to the technical aspects being beyond us.
billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Proofreading as a "means to quality" is not intrinsic to the text, surely; but is intrinsic to the "extraction method". So we agree there.
Multiple extraction methods will benefit Wikimedia as a whole, and the existence of one method does not diminish another. We live in an era where the traditional Wikipedia method (human reads some source, extracts a putative factual statement, comes to a judgement on the reliability of the source, and writes it into Wikipedia adorned with a footnote that applies to some rather unclear area of text) is held up by some as a gold standard. Which seems to me to miss a point or two – it is more the goose that lays the golden eggs, than something infallible.
Anyway, what ScienceSource is intended to do includes getting past the "primary sources bad, secondary sources good" hurdle for facts extracted directly from the scientific literature by machine. I think the technique of annotation, which might use Wikibase, might also be seen to have further application. We'll have to wait, probably. I'd be happy to go into detail, to anyone who is that interested. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not worried about published scientific works. I'm worried about having a Wiki that's 80% of articles from modern scientific journals and 20% older works. It'd be like having a Wikipedia that's 80% highly technical scientific works; people aren't going to look to it for non-scientific works, and people who might build the other 20% are likely to feel unwelcomed. Likewise, a Wiki that's 80% modern scientific journals might be hurt by having Negroes and Negro "slavery;" the first, an inferior race--the latter, its normal condition, whereas a general library has an easier time explaining why it has old racial hatred on its shelf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said above: the announcement of ScienceSource is not of a project intended to happen on Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I personally haven't given up on using Wikisource as a repository for open-access articles ("dumping" has never been the intention), but am focusing my current efforts on technical aspects of the workflows that would help us getting there (the pilot project here taught us a lot in this regard). Note that both WikiProject Source MetaData (which gave rise to WikiCite, which in turn was involved in launching the Initiative for Open Citations) and the JATS for Reuse initiative (which aims to improve the XML that forms the basis of importing the articles here) have been launched in large part to address the issues that were brought about by our attempts to make such a Wikisource corpus of open-access literature useful. On the way, we are building tools like Scholia that allow new forms of browsing literature (e.g. for a topic, person, work, journal, publisher, organization or funder), and I would welcome a closer integration of them with Wikisource, which could come about by any of these dimensions, with texts probably being central. I also remain interested in annotations, and would like to explore how we can include them in such semantic browsing, e.g. by systematically linking them with the corresponding Wikidata statements. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

## How to best structure this text?

I have been building a transcription of Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier. The book contained two works, each of which has different titles on the title page and within the book; and each one contains a highly detailed TOC.

What is the best way to structure this overall? I am wondering if the main page should maybe look more or less like this:

User:Peteforsyth/Eleven front

But I don't have a good grasp of the range of possibilities. Can anybody point me to a transcription of a work with a similar structure, or offer ideas of how to best present this to the reader in a way that is both accurate and useful? -Pete (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

An option: Replicate Main base page as closely as possible to original (using transcluded title page); use {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} to link to Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Part 1 & Part 2; at each Part subpage, you would transclude the intro and TOC Pages which link to chapters Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Part 1/Chapter 1, Chapter 2, &c. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
An example where we've had two distinct works in one book is Moll Flanders and Roxana. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

## OCR scan is all over the place

I have read Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading#Common OCR errors but I don't see this error addressed. I am trying to finish A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays and the OCR scan has virtually random word placement. E.g. my next page scans as:

still it

absolutely certain (and this

is

resource, the great irrefragable
flesh-eater)

meat

that

intellectual vigour,

may be

And

dogma

necessary

is


etc. This is maddening. Why does it have this garbled text and how do I fix it so that I can just make small changes to a correct OCR scan instead of retyping the entire work by hand? I have encountered this before with some works I have transcribed (e.g. Aucassin and Nicolette (Bourdillon)) but not others (e.g. The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist, Original Stories from Real Life, and Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art). A fix to this will save me hundreds of hours of work.—Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Your editing toolbar should have an OCR button. Click on it and it will give you a much better OCR. Jpez (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow. I could kiss you. Thanks, Jpez. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
And if that OCR button doesn't give good results, you could also try the Google OCR button: oldwikisource:Wikisource:Google OCR (uses a different OCR system; other than that it's identical in fuction). Sam Wilson 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I actually couldn't get the button to display on mul.ws. Do you have any idea why that is? I unselected it and selected it again in my Preferences but it doesn't show up in the Page: namespace for me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
if you go to "preferences > gadgets > Editing tools for Page: namespace", there is a box to check. it stopped working for some preferences for me, but is working now. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I did in my comment above. I'll try again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

## Proposal for keyboard shortcuts

I prefer to edit with the keyboard, so shortcuts like "Alt+Shift+E" to edit are valuable. In the Page: namespace, we don't have shortcuts for navigating pages. I'd like to propose that we 1.) add these and 2.) that they should be "Alf+Shift+→", "Alf+Shift+←", and "Alf+Shift+↑", for navigating forwards one page, backwards one page, and to the index. I want to get community feedback and consensus before going to phab:. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I edit mostly on a Macintosh, which has no "alt" key. I sometimes edit from a PC whose keyboard has no arrow keys. Keyboard shortcuts are not likely to be implemented like this when they apply to a single project and cannot be universal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
In yet other systems, e.g. MacOS, the access key is the combination of the control and option keys. In this case, as above, hold down both keys together and then press the shortcut key. I can confirm--I've used them before. There is a MacOS or OS X equivalent to the Windows-style keyboard shortcut. Do you have a suggestion for different keys? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not. But then I don't think this proposal is necessary or beneficial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Any more or less so than the other keyboard shortcuts or are your objections basically irrelevant to this particular proposal? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I use keyboard shortcuts to copy, paste, and enter diacriticals all the time. My personal experience causes me to strongly dislike any keyboard shortcut that causes the current page to change. I have lost count of the number of times I have been robbed of much difficult editing, all because some accidental keyboard combination moved me to a new page in the middle of editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough but since you're saying 1.) that you don't use shortcuts and 2.) you are in zero danger of accidentally pressing them, then while your perspective is valuable as far as it goes, it's not really that germane here as the change would have no impact on you and I'm not seeing how it's a possible site-wide problem anymore than any other shortcut (in fact, much less since there is less of a prospect of pressing those buttons accidentally). Anyone else? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So you do use MediaWiki shortcuts and there is a high likelihood that you would press "Alf+Shift+↑" on a keyboard that lacks those keys? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are not able to understand what I've been saying, but at this point I don't think it's worth my time to continue trying to explain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, thanks again for your perspective. I hope that we can enable shortcut keys for myself and other users who find them more accessible (e.g. those who have difficulty with fine motor skills). If you have some misgivings about these, you can post them elsewhere and maybe it will be more intelligible. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment All of this relates to mw:extension:ProofreadPage, so probably is best put into and discussed in a phabricator: ticket. It effects all uses of ProofreadPage at all wikisources, in all languages, so even deciding a letter based on English words is presumptive. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
As background for a phabricator request, please refer to mw:Help:Keyboard shortcuts. These shortcuts have been around for donkey's years, so the accidental usage of shortcuts in general is unlikely; and generally you are more likely to be trying to save a page, and start to delete it,—BTDT, worn out the t-shirt—which is easily recoverable. — billinghurst sDrewth
Sure, but I wanted to get feedback first to see what other users thought here. I'll open the ticket. phab:T186478. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Access keys for page forward/back notwithstanding, here is something that might appeal to people who dislike mouse navigation: User:Inductiveload/quick access.js. It collects all the toolbar and tab links into a single dialog and allows you to filter them and activate with the keyboard. Add the following to your user JS: mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inductiveload/quick_access.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. You can invoke it with the "A" access key (so Shift-Alt-A in Firefox). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

## Editcount and checkboxes from editing screen displayed awkwardly

The edit count is outside the subject bar, which is shorter than other wikis. Also, the checkboxes, like "Watch this page", are pushed right by one inch. I filed a Phabricator task (phab:T186442), which is closed as "invalid". The issue turns out to be a local wiki one and that MediaWiki:Gadget-enws-tweaks.css should be fixed, adjusted, or something. I inserted the screenshots at the task; you can go there and see. George Ho (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please feel welcome to amend your special:mypage/common.css file for the class if it is a problem for you. I am not sure that it is problematic, though we can put it into the review mix. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Created my own "common.css". However, what about others using English Wikisource? Other language sites of Wikisource don't have custom-made similar to this, right? George Ho (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I said that we would put it in for review (which has been done on css talk page), and as it was a purposeful change at some point reacting to a report alone is not good process. Your report seems to be look alone; nothing that you have said says it has broken functionality. What other sites do, or don't do, is mildly informative, not normative. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

## Whether to reproduce CC-licensed journal article in just text

I would like to republish/redistribute a CC-licensed journal article, seen here: [32][33]. I just found out about it when the copyright of the PDF version is disputed and subject to a Commons discussion. If it can be reproduced into Wikisource (without images), I think the issue would be formatting references. Does the CC BY v4.0 license require a licensee to make notes of changes or something? George Ho (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The paper is CC, and is available in PDF, so I would just upload it and we can build the Index/Page pages here. The images decision will follow and high res v. low res argument will tell us what is happening for Commons hosting. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
yeah, upload it here with CC license. i guess we need to route around that commons admin. sad. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The commons admin is there on a point of principle, and should not be criticised for that, and as such it is not right to criticise an individual here. The community can deal with admins with an approach to consensus and I believe it will show through with those strengths. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
you can defend this or other deletionist admins if you will, for me they are an obstruction to be routed around, to do encyclopedic work. i do not see principle, but rather an ideology. principles require ethics or a code of conduct. not much collaboration, rather rule by fiat. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the image was deleted because the admin believed that the artist did not understand the details of what he was giving away and chose not to take someone's work, work he used to feed himself, because the artist was offering only the right to use the low-res version when that is not possible under a CC license. I'd call that "fairness" which is a fairly basic principal or ethic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"for the record" - i think it’s great an admin can flout the monkey-selfie consensus in solicitude towards "the artist [who] did not understand the details". i will try that excuse out next time i want to delete one of mine, and i am told "CC is irrevocable" or "Prado Museum can get stuffed" Slowking4SvG's revenge 04:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Have the decency to have your argument to their face at Commons, not snipe at them here. That community's decision that did not impact us, as such the criticism belongs there. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
this has been resolved at Commons and you should be able to upload the paper to Commons; the low-res version of the disputed file has been restored. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded as File:Countershading and Stripes in the Theropod Dinosaur Sinosauropteryx Reveal Heterogeneous Habitats in the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota.pdf. Now what to do with the PDF? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I also created Index:Countershading and Stripes in the Theropod Dinosaur Sinosauropteryx Reveal Heterogeneous Habitats in the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota.pdf, but I haven't yet created Pages. Must I use "CC-BY-4.0" as footer or something? George Ho (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The help that you seek should be covered in the help pages in your welcome message. The file at Commons needs a license, and the completed, translcuded work here will need a license, not required in Index: or Page: nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

## Wikimania 2018 call for submissions now open

On behalf of the program commmittee of Wikimania 2018 - Cape Town, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting proposals for workshops, discussions, presentations, or research posters to give during the conference. To read the full instructions visit the event wiki and click on the link provided there to make your proposal:

https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

The deadline is 18 March. This is approximately 6 weeks away.
This year, the conference will have an explicit theme based in African philosophy:

Bridging knowledge gaps, the ubuntu way forward.

Read more about this theme, why it was chosen, and what it means for determining the conference program at the Wikimedia blog. Sincerely, Wittylama 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-06

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

### Comment

• The new Wikidata tracking category will appear in Special:TrackingCategories, I couldn't find a specific reference to its name so we will have to look at that when it is rolled out. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

## Problems with File:Runic and heroic poems of the old Teutonic peoples.pdf

I uploaded File:Runic and heroic poems of the old Teutonic peoples.pdf, and none of the pages want to load. I can look through the PDF when I download it, but is there something I can do here, or should I try a different file from the Internet Archive? It's sort of an important book, because it's backing for Rune poems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though the page that I opened and saved didn't have the best OCR, and I would be tempted to refresh it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

## Guidance on missing punctuation

On Page:Henry Stephens Salt - A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays.pdf/110, you will see at the very end of the page, there is a hanging sentence before "For..." without a period. What is the best practice for this: insert one anyway? Leave it as is with a blank space followed by "For"? Use some template like {{SIC}}? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question. I usually correct these little punctuation errors. But I'll be glad to hear about this from other editors! --Dick Bos (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The hyphen in the line immediately above is also missing. I usually just leave these as they are printed. If it's a particularly egregious typo, then I'll add {{sic}} after it (note that this is different from {{SIC}}). The one time I fix them, is in children's books—particularly those for early readers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
What hyphen? I only see two in the scan and they are in the text: both are for instances of "dog-like". —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: The word "outrage" as opposed to "out rage" as it currently shows. The hyphen that should have been printed at the end of the line is missing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Generally I will only correct if it is required for clarity. I would usually wrap the added punctuation inside a <includonly> set, keeping the Page: as presented and the clarity in the transcluded work. I feel that this indicates for the {{sic}} that BWC said is their means. In this example, I probably wouldn't have, though have no complaints whichever choice. Here we are dealing with the typographer's work, not the author's, so not changing the intent of the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the original concern. The sentence you mention concludes on the next page, with a period on that page, so why are you considering any change to that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am seeing this differently from the rest of you. The missing hyphen, missing period, slight gap at the end of each of those two lines, and the missing part of the "f" at the end of the line below suggest to me a printing (or perhaps scanning) anomaly. I believe the hyphen and the period were both there in the original typesetting. -Pete (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pete: if the error is small and there's a good chance it is a print or scan error, there is no harm in fixing it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If doing so please leave an inline html comment <!-- fixing punctation from scan-->billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

## Works recommendations and favorite quotations for Twitter

If this seems like a good idea to others, I would like to post Contributor #Wikipicks and favorite quotations at the English Wikisource Twitter account on occasion if anyone is game to share their favorites from works and quotes available here at Wikisource that can be linked to in a tweet. I wouldn't post User names (at Twitter) unless permission is expressly given to do so. If anyone is up for offering their favorites, feel free to leave work/quote picks at my Talk page. More than one per would be great! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, but you probably could have guessed that :) I'll try to send ideas your way from time to time. Let me know if there are other ways I can help. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
One that I have been thinking of tweeting for Black History Month is Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 9/The "Free-State Letter" of Judge George H. Williams. But I think it might need pretty hefty trigger warning. It is understood as the decisive document preventing Oregon from becoming a slave state in the run-up to the American Civil War...but it was by no means progressive, by any reasonable standard. It was overtly racist, and made the argument in practical/economic terms. Important, but truly distasteful, piece of history. I'm on the fence about whether and how to tweet about it... -Pete (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's just say that if you or others are on the fence about a thing, I am likely behind a very high concrete wall... So if I don't tweet about a thing, it's because I'm not comfortable with my judgment concerning posting about certain subject matters. I'm not very bold in this area. Probably not the best social media person for the job ;) but I like to promote Wikisource, and am happy to do so as long as I am permitted to :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

## Index:A voyage to Abyssinia (Salt).djvu needs some help

Hi to all. If anyone has time and a little patience. This work has been marked as proofread, though there are some issues where the footnotes have not been made into ref'd footnotes, and some situations where the foreign characters have been omitted and not been marked as such. The work also needs some transclusion of missing chapters. If anyone can give it some love that would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

## Printing and binding Wikisource works

(I think this has come up before, but I can't find it now.) Does anyone think it'd be a good idea to be able to buy printed and bound copies of works from Wikisource? I'm thinking we could use Pediapress as a print-on-demand service and some of the proceeds would go to the WMF (and maybe we could figure out a way to earmark these funds for Wikisource work). A set of paperbacks called "Wikisource Classics" or something. I know there's the Collection extension which produces PDFs that can be sent to Pediapress, but it doesn't work well for the structures of works we have here. I'm thinking something more along the lines of generating LaTeX-formatted versions from works here, and hand-editing them where required (in such a way as to make it easy to incorporate future changes of course). For example, The Nether World when run through this script and tweaked a bit produces this PDF. What do you think? Sam Wilson 04:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea and a good way to raise money. How can I help? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I think we should select a set of say five works that we could use as a test run. I've emailed Pediapress to see if their workflow can accomodate non-Collection-extension inputs (either PDF or LaTeX; I suspect the latter will work for them as it's what they're already using). Shall we coordinate this on Wikisource:Print on demand? If Pediapress can't do it, we can set up a Wikisource account on Lulu or something; Wikimedia Australia could possibly handle the payments. Sam Wilson 03:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This all sounds very sensible. I'd be willing to work on the CSS for laying out the books as well. I think we could do well to have some more deluxe editions of works later down the road but at the very least, we can include plenty of media from c:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The Nether World might be an excellent first choice, given that it is part of the Oxford World Classics series (indicating interest) yet there's no in-print non-cheap PoD edition out there.* However, I think we need to be able to reliably produce decent PDF and thus PoD works from more or less arbitrary Wikisource works. If a work has demand, we'll be competing against Oxford or Penguin or at least Dover; if it doesn't have any of those publishers, then there's pretty minimal demand for it. Our value will be in breadth, not in any one work.
(* Don't take this as a slam against PoD, but rather against all the publishers who seem to take Google scans or Gutenberg transcripts without ever pausing to make sure they're complete and usable.)
I think this is a great thing for people who like physical books and may want to support Wikisource. I think if you want to raise money, take a very good look at how much is coming in from stuff like PediaPress right now and how much you're actually going to sell. Capitalism can be a cold hard mistress.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point about fundraising. It'd be great if we could make some money out of it, but I guess that's unlikely. Even a small amount going to the WMF on each sale would be nice though, and if nothing else is better than that money going to Lulu or whatever else commercial service (although, I suspect Pediapress uses one of those services). So, more of an advantage for people buying the books than for us as a fundraiser perhaps.

As for creating these books from any Wikisource work, I think the issue is in the details: basically, my current approach is to generate, pretty automatically, the LaTeX source. This can then be edited by hand, to make the book as good as it can be (e.g. fix up tables, footnotes, put in proper headings, generate the ToC based on those headings, etc.). It's a bit of a jump from a facsimile edition (even an HTML-formatted facsimile such as we produce on Wikisource) but I think makes for a better bound book.

This is similar to the approach to epubs of Standard Ebooks, where they're not relying at all on a single-source/multi-output system but are instead just writing the epubs directly. The difference I see with Wikisource is that whatever derivative formats we produce, we should always be able to merge in the changes that we might make on-wiki. To this end, I'm putting the LaTeX source into a Git repostory, and can at any time re-run the generation process and bring in any changes — but also retain the local modifications.

Sam Wilson 02:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-07

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

## New problem with the special characters toolbar

Hi there,

Since 14/02/2018 21:50 (UTC), I have issues with the toolbar for specials characters and custom toolbars in the Page: namespace. Whenever I try to add something, it adds it to the page at the beginning of the page and the header and the footer are duplicated into the main section of the page. For example, here: [51], when I add "Á" at the end of the first line (DICTIONARY OP THE SWATOW DIALECT.), this is what I get : <noinclude><pagequality level="1" Áuser="" />{{RunningHeader|left=77|center={{sc|dictionary of the swatow dialect.}}|right=77}}{{multicol|line=1px solid black}} </noinclude>DICTIONARY OP THE SWATOW DIALECT.

The problem does not affect main namespace.

The problem started at that time (21:50 UTC) approximately. Assassas77 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The same problem on pl ws. using anything from editTools inserts hidden footers and headers into the page text. Zdzislaw (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Same problem here. ...do you use the custom toolbar as well? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
it seems that this change: Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage(added a project to T186478: Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage: MW-1.31-release-notes (WMF-deploy-2018-02-13 (1.31.0-wmf.21)).) completely destroyed the possibility of using the editTools and toolbar :( Zdzislaw (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. Charinsert does not insert at the cursor but anywhere it feels like. it has nothing to do with the toolbar, which in your scheme of things inserts some template codes into the text (please correct me if I am wrong). This is an error caused somewhere else in the code. — Ineuw talk 02:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: A description of what happens when I try to add a break to the first line of poetry using the <br /> button from my custom toolbar (placed after "glares. . . .", but that's not where it appears) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I am calling it a night, so I won't be responding for a few hours. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand, but the origin of the problem is not your toolbar, nor is it my character insert bar. There is a an error somewhere in the wiki code which affects all such actions. Since everything of this nature is affected, it will be easier for the programmers to locate and repair it. Until then, one has to type in all the codes. My only regret is that they never try out their changes in a real working environment before they release the new software upgrade.P.S. Rest well. — Ineuw talk 03:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's happening to me in Monobook as well. It's inserting at about 50 characters earlier than the insertion point. Happens both from the classic toolbar and from the charinsert at the bottom. I've got around it by inserting into the header box and then copy/paste to where it should be. However this is far too much of a nuisance, so I'm stopping after 1 page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wonder if this change has anything to do with it. Certainly it doesn't seem that there's been any recent change to the WikiEditor toolbar that would have caused this. are you able to assist at all here? Sam Wilson 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In relation to the char-insert/ SpecialCharcters insertion issue, I am also experiencing this. (Firefox 60.0a1 (2018-02-14)) on Windows 7.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage is related to this problem. This change seems to be the real origin of the problem (thank you Sam). I have opened a task about it with more explanations. Tpt (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Some weeks ago I made a feature request to add an alt-shift keyboard combination to open/close the header. Could this be the issue? I would not know how to track this down. — Ineuw talk 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. See the task for details. Matma Rex (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Working for me! Many thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for repairing this. Dick Bos (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Solved for me :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

## An aside from more important problems

As soon as the more serious problem of the character insertion issue is on the way to be resolved, I am asking for info so that a cat can be revived, (namely, the one that's dying of curiosity.)

1. The text of proofread and saved pages, when reopened, are padded with numerous newlines at the end of the text. I am assuming that there is something is wrong when the page is saved initially.
2. In edit mode, on the right of the Summary box three digits are displayed. most of the time it is 255, but not always. Can someone in the know comment on this? Thank you. — Ineuw talk 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The second one's easy; the edit summary can apparently be up to 255 characters long, and that's telling you how many characters you have left.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I find that there's a newline at the end for every time I preview a page. I just get rid of them before doing the final save. It started happening relatively recently, but I don't know when. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, you are 100% correct. the added newlines is a recent issue, perhaps two week or so. — Ineuw talk 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If the trailing lines are left is it impacting transclusion? I do know that mediawiki can give and take at the same time at the end of a page. If it is impacting we may wish to get a fix in play, if it isn't then we may be over-playing around mediawiki quirkiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's affecting transclusion as they're just part of the swallowed blank space at the end that gets converted to a single space. I get rid of them because they prevent me from seeing most of the page's text in the box at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In my case there are as many as 10 newlines at the bottom of the page, but not always. This only happens to proofread pages and notice it before saving the page. So now before removing them, I will check the main namespace article first, and post the results. Perhaps the page namespace database was not compacted/optimized as frequently as it should be? But, I lean towards mediawiki quirkiness. — Ineuw talk 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-08

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

## "Contents" in transclusions

Dear English Wikisource Editors,

How to show "Contents" in transclusions like this? __TOC__ does not work.--維基小霸王 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Using <pages> doesn't work for Wikipedia-like headings. One working way is:
__TOC__
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/12|num=6R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/13|num=6L}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/14|num=7R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/15|num=7L}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/16|num=8R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/17|num=8L}}
-Einstein95 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is too troublesome to make 10000 such thing. It also makes the source inelegant. I give up.--維基小霸王 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: we generally wouldn't try to do so. Where there is a table of contents in the published work, then we would look to transclude that and have the pertinent links contained. Where there is not such a ToC, then we would utilise {{auxiliary Table of Contents}} and paste in the components we wish to do. You are correct that the code becomes ugly and typically for no real benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

::::To note that the headings do work for transclusions, see example, if it isn't working at zhWP then check the local settings. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) oh you mean <pages>, no, that has been set to remove numerous amounts of class coding like "indented pages" . — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

## Braces spanning lines

Could someone help with positioning the braces (and brace-text) for Page:Mary Lamb (Gilchrist 1883).djvu/16? I need to shift them down slightly without altering any other formatting on the page, but am not sure how to go about it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe use a table? Copying table formatting from past examples in my sandbox, how about something along the lines of the following:

Memoir of William Hazlitt, by W. Carew Hazlitt. 1867.

 Spirit of the Age. Table Talk. ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}}$ Hazlitt. 1825, 1826. Autobiographical Sketches. Lakes and Lake Poets. ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}}$ De Quincey. 1863.

William Godwin, his Friends and Contemporaries, by Kegan Paul. 1876.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be a two-page-spanning table with lots of internal formatting. I'd like to avoid using a table for the two pages, if that's possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am only copying someone else's smartness, but the way it is formatted, it seems as though only the affected portion needs to be a table? See in edit mode (refer to "p style" etc., which lies outside the table). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The spacing between consecutive lines is different with and without the table. So it looks odd if only a select portion is formatted as a table. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

## Split a page in half

There are some pdf files with two pages on a single scan. Is there any automatic way on Wikisource to split a page in half? --Yousef (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, though there may be some third-party tools that can do this. If you can't find a better scan with separated pages, you can still proofread it; it's the same as proofreading a text with two columns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)